Handicap reductions when soft cap activated

[DickInShorts]

Let me pose an example and a question.

Suppose a player’s handicap index has increased into the soft cap range, and is 4.2 above his low handicap index. That player then has a good game and enters the score which lowers the average of his best 8 of 20 by 0.8. Does the soft cap restriction of 50% apply to this reduction, ie, would his new handicap index go down by 0.8 or 0.4?
(I thought that the soft cap only applied for increases in handicap index, not decreases)

You seem to be trying to take us back to my initial post?

This is the answer my club got from Scottish Golf (which agrees with several who corrected my initial(wrong) interpretation:


In WHS every time a player submits a new score the system calculates the new HI from scratch using the current 20 scores and then looks at the LHI to see if a soft or hard cap would come into play. So looking at Richard's 8 best scores the differentials total 123.1 which would give a new HI of 15.4. The soft cap kicks in at 10.8 + 3 = 13.8 so anything above this only counts at half value i.e 15.4-13.8 = 1.6 so half of this is 0.8. Adding the 0.8 to the 13.8 gets to the new HI of 14.6. What the previous HI was is actually irrelevant.

The system calculates a new index using the last 20 each time there is a new score using the same procedures as it did for the previous one just with the new data. It doesn’t do what CONGU did and use the last index as the starting point.

I hope this helps explain the 14.6

 

[wjemather]

I thought that the soft cap only applied for increases in handicap index, not decreases

Again, increases and decreases are in relation to the Low Handicap Index, not whatever the current handicap index happens to be.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Let me pose an example and a question.

Suppose a player’s handicap index has increased into the soft cap range, and is 4.2 above his low handicap index. That player then has a good game and enters the score which lowers the average of his best 8 of 20 by 0.8. Does the soft cap restriction of 50% apply to this reduction, ie, would his new handicap index go down by 0.8 or 0.4?
(I thought that the soft cap only applied for increases in handicap index, not decreases)

Yes the 50% soft cap reduction still applies, if the new best of 8 average is still above the new LOW Handicap Index

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You seem to be trying to take us back to my initial post?

This is the answer my club got from Scottish Golf (which agrees with several who corrected my initial(wrong) interpretation:


In WHS every time a player submits a new score the system calculates the new HI from scratch using the current 20 scores and then looks at the LHI to see if a soft or hard cap would come into play. So looking at Richard's 8 best scores the differentials total 123.1 which would give a new HI of 15.4. The soft cap kicks in at 10.8 + 3 = 13.8 so anything above this only counts at half value i.e 15.4-13.8 = 1.6 so half of this is 0.8. Adding the 0.8 to the 13.8 gets to the new HI of 14.6. What the previous HI was is actually irrelevant.

The system calculates a new index using the last 20 each time there is a new score using the same procedures as it did for the previous one just with the new data. It doesn’t do what CONGU did and use the last index as the starting point.

I hope this helps explain the 14.6

Thanks for posting that DiS, that makes sense, tho absolutely I was thinking you were seeing it correctly, it's how I'd expected it to work too.

 

[rulie]

Here is a question that I submitted to USGA and their answer:
Q: I understand the cap procedure for handicaps that are increasing, ie, within soft cap only 50% of the calculated increase is applied.
Does the same 50% “reduction” apply when the handicap index is decreasing within the soft cap range?
A: No. The cap process is a procedure that is in place to suppress the upward movement of a Handicap Index. There is no limit to the downward movement. The Handicap Index is used to identify the player's demonstrated ability so there is no reason to limit any downward movement.

 

[wjemather]

Here is a question that I submitted to USGA and their answer:
Q: I understand the cap procedure for handicaps that are increasing, ie, within soft cap only 50% of the calculated increase is applied.
Does the same 50% “reduction” apply when the handicap index is decreasing within the soft cap range?
A: No. The cap process is a procedure that is in place to suppress the upward movement of a Handicap Index. There is no limit to the downward movement. The Handicap Index is used to identify the player's demonstrated ability so there is no reason to limit any downward movement.

I don't think they have understood the misreading/misunderstanding of the rule as expressed in your question.
To follow on from their response (using your and their language)... when the handicap index is decreasing within the soft cap range, the cap process is still working to suppress upwards movement.

 

[rulie]

I don't think they have understood the misreading/misunderstanding of the rule as expressed in your question.
To follow on from their response (using your and their language)... when the handicap index is decreasing within the soft cap range, the cap process is still working to suppress upwards movement.

When the index is within the soft cap range, I agree that the cap process is still working to suppress upward movement of handicap index, but the cap process is not suppressing decreases of handicap index.

 

[Swango1980]

When the index is within the soft cap range, I agree that the cap process is still working to suppress upward movement of handicap index, but the cap process is not suppressing decreases of handicap index.

Are you understanding this? I thought it was all sorted on this thread.

When a players average score differential from their best 8 is above the soft cap limit, their index is suppressed accordingly (I.e. their index is lower than their average score differential).

If that player then submits a score that becomes one of their top 8, their average score differential will decrease. However, if that average is STILL above the soft cap limit, their Index will be suppressed accordingly

 

[rulie]

Are you understanding this? I thought it was all sorted on this thread.

When a players average score differential from their best 8 is above the soft cap limit, their index is suppressed accordingly (I.e. their index is lower than their average score differential).

If that player then submits a score that becomes one of their top 8, their average score differential will decrease. However, if that average is STILL above the soft cap limit, their Index will be suppressed accordingly

That's not what the USGA says - when the handicap index is within the soft cap range, there is no suppression of downward movement; suppression only applies to upward movement.

 

[Swango1980]

That's not what the USGA says - when the handicap index is within the soft cap range, there is no suppression of downward movement; suppression only applies to upward movement.

I can guarantee you that is how it works. Not only is that how it is described in the manual, that is exactly how it has worked on my Index (I just so happen to be a above the soft cap).

It appears USGA have misinterpreted your question.

Imagine a player who's average score differential was 20, but their Low Index 5.0. Their Actual Index would be 10.0 due to hard cap.

Now, they submit a score with a differential of 16.0, and their average differential goes from 20.0 to 19.5. However, their Index is STILL 10.0. By sounds of it, you think their Index will go from 10.0 to 9.5?

 

[rulie]

We're talking soft cap and when the handicap index is within soft cap range. The 50% factor only applies to increases in the average of 8 of 20, it has no impact on decreases in average of 8 of 20.
Here's how I understand it (and believe that it is what the USGA says). If a player's handicap index is 4.5 above their low handicap index and the player enters a score which would decrease the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index will decrease by 0.7. On the other side, if the player entered a score which would increase the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index would only increase by 0.35.

 

[Swango1980]

We're talking soft cap and when the handicap index is within soft cap range. The 50% factor only applies to increases in the average of 8 of 20, it has no impact on decreases in average of 8 of 20.
Here's how I understand it (and believe that it is what the USGA says). If a player's handicap index is 4.5 above their low handicap index and the player enters a score which would decrease the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index will decrease by 0.7. On the other side, if the player entered a score which would increase the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index would only increase by 0.35.

That is incorrect.

 

[DickInShorts]

We're talking soft cap and when the handicap index is within soft cap range. The 50% factor only applies to increases in the average of 8 of 20, it has no impact on decreases in average of 8 of 20.
Here's how I understand it (and believe that it is what the USGA says). If a player's handicap index is 4.5 above their low handicap index and the player enters a score which would decrease the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index will decrease by 0.7. On the other side, if the player entered a score which would increase the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index would only increase by 0.35.

There is a clear example on the USGA website that shows how it works according to the USGA - that is simply that the ‘raw’ index is calculated first then anything over the soft cap is halved whichever way the raw index has moved whilst the HI is in the soft cap range for that player. This also allows an audit trail which is easily checked

 

[rulie]

There is a clear example on the USGA website that shows how it works according to the USGA - that is simply that the ‘raw’ index is calculated first then anything over the soft cap is halved whichever way the raw index has moved whilst the HI is in the soft cap range for that player. This also allows an audit trail which is easily checked

Can you paste a link to that example please.

 

[Swango1980]

We're talking soft cap and when the handicap index is within soft cap range. The 50% factor only applies to increases in the average of 8 of 20, it has no impact on decreases in average of 8 of 20.
Here's how I understand it (and believe that it is what the USGA says). If a player's handicap index is 4.5 above their low handicap index and the player enters a score which would decrease the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index will decrease by 0.7. On the other side, if the player entered a score which would increase the average of 8 of 20 by 0.7, their handicap index would only increase by 0.35.

Also, if you think about it logically, how would you're description above work mathematically?

A person's index is simply the average of the best 8 score differentials. Once that average is calculated, if it is over the soft cap, then it is scaled down accordingly (I.e. the correct method).

Imagine a player had a Low Index of 10.0, but their best 8 scores average to 14.0. We are both in agreement that their Index would be 13.5, not 14.0. Also, recognise at this point you are not bothered by the individual score differentials. Their best could be 10.0, worst 18.0, but you are not bothered by whether the 10.0 was the earliest or latest score!

Let us say they the submit a Score Differential of 2.0 that replaces the 18.0. This would reduce the average of best 8 by 2.0, from 14.0 to 12.0. Clearly, their Index would simply be 12.0 at this point, from 13.5.

However, the way you describe it, were you say the soft cap has no limit when individual scores reduce the average, then you would presumably say the players Index should drop the full 2.0 to 11.5, despite the average of their best 8 being 12.0. You've now lost the link between the average of the best 8 and the actual index.

 

[DickInShorts]

Can you paste a link to that example please.

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/softcapandhardcap-detailed.pdf

 

[rulie]

Also, if you think about it logically, how would you're description above work mathematically?

A person's index is simply the average of the best 8 score differentials. Once that average is calculated, if it is over the soft cap, then it is scaled down accordingly (I.e. the correct method).

Imagine a player had a Low Index of 10.0, but their best 8 scores average to 14.0. We are both in agreement that their Index would be 13.5, not 14.0. Also, recognise at this point you are not bothered by the individual score differentials. Their best could be 10.0, worst 18.0, but you are not bothered by whether the 10.0 was the earliest or latest score!

Let us say they the submit a Score Differential of 2.0 that replaces the 18.0. This would reduce the average of best 8 by 2.0, from 14.0 to 12.0. Clearly, their Index would simply be 12.0 at this point, from 13.5.

However, the way you describe it, were you say the soft cap has no limit when individual scores reduce the average, then you would presumably say the players Index should drop the full 2.0 to 11.5, despite the average of their best 8 being 12.0. You've now lost the link between the average of the best 8 and the actual index.

Of course his new index would be 12.0, as correctly calculated, and it is now outside the soft cap range, meaning that the soft cap process is no longer applicable. I've been only talking about when the new average of 8 of 20 decreases and stays within the soft cap range. In that case, I don't believe the 50% calculation applies to the decrease.

 

[rulie]

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/softcapandhardcap-detailed.pdf

Thank you. That infographic and example is obviously correct. It deals with increases of the average of 8 of 20 into the soft cap range. It also only speaks of "increases", it does not mention decreases. See post above for clarification of my point regarding decreases in average of 8 of 20.

 

[DickInShorts]

Thank you. That infographic and example is obviously correct. It deals with increases of the average of 8 of 20 into the soft cap range. It also only speaks of "increases", it does not mention decreases. See post above for clarification of my point regarding decreases in average of 8 of 20.

See post .#41 - this shows the same methodology is used whenever a player - such as me - is in the soft cap range.
I initially thought like you that the 50% adjustment only applied to increases but Scottish Golf as well as USGA shows it applies all the time as both increases and decreases are irrelevant when doing the calculation for a new handicap

 

[rulie]

See post .#41 - this shows the same methodology is used whenever a player - such as me - is in the soft cap range.
I initially thought like you that the 50% adjustment only applied to increases but Scottish Golf as well as USGA shows it applies all the time as both increases and decreases are irrelevant when doing the calculation for a new handicap

Applying it to decreases within the soft cap range is certainly contrary to the information in the infographic link that you sent, to the stated purpose of the soft and hard caps and to the answer that I received from the USGA (see post #45).